MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3198224695 · doi:10.7554/elife.70023

Correction of amblyopia in cats and mice after the critical period

2021· article· en· W3198224695 on OpenAlexafffund
Ming‐fai Fong, Kevin R. Duffy, Madison P. Leet, Christian T. Candler, Mark F. Bear

Bibliographic record

VenueeLife · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNational Eye InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMonocular deprivationVisual cortexMonocularNeurosciencePeriod (music)NeuroplasticityPsychologyOcular dominanceCATSMedicineAudiologyOptometryOphthalmologyOpticsPhysicsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Monocular deprivation early in development causes amblyopia, a severe visual impairment. Prognosis is poor if therapy is initiated after an early critical period. However, clinical observations have shown that recovery from amblyopia can occur later in life when the non-deprived (fellow) eye is removed. The traditional interpretation of this finding is that vision is improved simply by the elimination of interocular suppression in primary visual cortex, revealing responses to previously subthreshold input. However, an alternative explanation is that silencing activity in the fellow eye establishes conditions in visual cortex that enable the weak connections from the amblyopic eye to gain strength, in which case the recovery would persist even if vision is restored in the fellow eye. Consistent with this idea, we show here in cats and mice that temporary inactivation of the fellow eye is sufficient to promote a full and enduring recovery from amblyopia at ages when conventional treatments fail. Thus, connections serving the amblyopic eye are capable of substantial plasticity beyond the critical period, and this potential is unleashed by reversibly silencing the fellow eye.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.195

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.297 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeLifeSame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207